To complement the recent post on Euler's errors, I would pose the following question: what common errors of Euler interpetation appear in the literature? What errors are attributed to Euler's work in infinitesimal analysis even though he never made them? In addition, what cultural attitudes tend to contribute to the persistence of a desire to seek to attribute errors to Euler (sometimes without bothering to study his works firsthand)? As an example, I would cite Jeremy Gray's comment to the effect that
At some point it should be admitted that Euler's attempts at explaining the foundations of calculus in terms of differentials, which are and are not zero, are dreadfully weak,
while providing no evidence whatsoever for such a claim. See page 6 here.
Another example is the thread Euler and infinity whether both the question and the accepted answer assume that Euler cavalierly assumed that sine equals the infinite product merely because they have the same zeros. Over 300 visitors to the page didn't disagree and apparently nobody bothered actually to look at what Euler wrote.
Note 1. Qualified editors are invited to click on the "reopen" button below to permit an exploration of specific issues of objectivity or lack thereof in Euler interpretation.